Cues, Endorsements, and Heresthetic in a High-profile Election: Racial Polarization in Durham, North Carolina?Cues, Endorsements, and Heresthetic in a High-profile Election: Racial Polarization in Durham, North Carolina?

Cues, Endorsements, and Heresthetic in a High-profile Election:
Racial Polarization in Durham, North Carolina?

Did voters in Durham, North Carolina divide along racial lines in the
high-profile May 2, 2006, primary election for Durham district attorney?
The results of an analysis of the primary vote by race suggest there were
not major racial divisions: winner Mike Nifong received about the same
percentage of support from African-American voters as from voters who are
not African American. However, it seems likely, and I argue here, that
Nifong used the high-profile prosecution of the Duke lacrosse rape case to
win over some African-American and White voters in what otherwise might
have been a low-key, low-information local election. This case and its
allegations are sordid and appalling, and have garnered substantial
national media attention. I contend that Nifong aggressively pursued
prosecution as a way of representing what he perceived was his
constituents' interests in justice for the alleged victim (though
some have subsequently questioned his prosecution of the case); this
aggressive prosecution's public nature likely had electoral
ramifications. Further, supporting recent work on race and electoral
politics, I show that traditional racial cues were critically important in
other concurrently held Durham elections, though not in Nifong's race
for district attorney. Nifong, a White candidate, defeated another White
candidate and an African-American candidate in a county that is 51% White
and 40% African-American (based on those identifying as only one race in
the 2000 census).